Paxton's Blind Trust Invested $600K in a Convicted Fraudster's Company

Introduction

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has built his political brand on cracking down on fraud, yet a recent ProPublica and Texas Tribune investigation reveals a stark contradiction: his family's blind trust funneled $600000 into a company led by a convicted fraudster. The disclosure threatens to undercut his law-and-order narrative as he campaigns for U.S. Senate.

What Happened

Scott Sherman pleaded guilty to mortgage fraud conspiracy in 2014 and later founded Wildcatter Sand Services and Grayson County Sand and Gravel. Four years after completing his federal prison sentence, the Paxton family's blind trust contributed a $600000 cash infusion to Sherman's enterprise. Records show the trust was far from opaque - Paxton had awareness of the investment, and his wife Angela served on an advisory board for the company's materials division. As the businesses expanded, some subsidiaries fell behind on local property taxes, prompting lawsuits from school districts and local governments.

Why This Matters

Ethics experts say profiting from a convicted felon's enterprise while posing as an anti-fraud champion erodes public trust. The investment also raises questions about whether Paxton can meet U.S. Senate blind-trust rules, which require complete separation from investment knowledge. During Paxton's impeachment proceedings, multiple Wildcatter companies wired over $83000 to the trust, including sums timed around legislative votes that benefited the family's business interests.

Key Takeaways

\n
• The Paxton blind trust invested $600000 in Wildcatter, a company built by a former mortgage-fraud defendant.
\n
• Angela Paxton served on Wildcatter Materials' advisory board and voted for legislation that shielded a subsidiary from environmental complaints.
\n
• Wildcatter companies wired $83000 or more to the trust in early 2023, during Paxton's impeachment trial.
\n
• Several Wildcatter subsidiaries racked up hundreds of thousands in unpaid property taxes, forcing local governments to sue.
\n
• Ethicists argue the arrangement contradicts Paxton's public stance against fraud and corruption.
\n

Conclusion

The blind-trust disclosure reveals the limits of Paxton's ethical firewall and raises serious questions about transparency as he seeks higher office. Voters looking for a clear separation between personal gain and public duty may find the arrangement deeply problematic, especially as Paxton campaigns on a law-and-order platform.